That Rochester Superintendent of Schools Jean-Claude Brizard has been looking for a position elsewhere has certainly been no secret. That Brizard threatened to do so almost from the day he came here in order to increase his salary, benefits and perks is a matter of record. That the school board was willing to pay this blackmail to reward poor performance on Brizard’s part, despite the continued decline of the Rochester City School District, is proof that the members of that “august” body walk around wearing blinkers.

It is a standard ploy that someone who is a poor performer threatens to quit, claiming greener pastures are beckoning him from elsewhere, in order to convince his employers that he is not as bad as they might think. So his employers give him a pay raise, while that someone merely kills time, continuing to look elsewhere before his employers realize what a terrible mistake they made in keeping him.

It really is only a matter of time before that employee leaves. Before people see how really bad he is as his job. Just like what happened here.

So why is everyone surprised? Like “Belshazzar’s Feast,” the writing has been on the wall for a long time!

The Rochester City School District is still in a mess. It has NOT improved despite Brizard’s tenure here. Yes, Brizard came up with “plans;” but these “plans” improved nothing. We still have the worst math and verbal scores in the state, the highest drop-out rate, high truancy rates and school violence.

The presumed drop in the teen pregnancy rate cannot be attributed to Brizard.

Perhaps one of the reasons Brizard is departing for Chicago, that toddlin’ town, is because “mayoral control” of Rochester’s schools was not instituted here. Brizard saw himself becoming “Chancellor” of the schools under the mayor who was. But that whole brouhaha ended precipitously when the mayor who was campaigned to become the Status Cuomo’s second banana. The topic of “mayoral control” is now effectively dead; it is doubtful that Tom Richards, the mayor who now is, will seek to revive it. Or have any success if he tries. After all, his template couldn’t pull it off, either, despite his much vaunted popularity!

So now Brizard is departing for a city that has mayoral control!

And one might remember that those cities that have effected mayoral control have found it ineffective!

Just like Brizard’s tenure as Superintendent of Schools was ineffective here.

So, it’s time for the school board to get off of their duffs and start selecting a new Superintendent of Schools. That’s part of their job. And they ought to look into the possibilities of legal and financial penalties against our departing superintendent, for early termination of his contract. Just like when we “little men” change our cell phone companies, cable tv companies or energy providers.

That is, if they have the guts to do it.

Now, let’s just see what the school board comes up with for Brizard’s replacement.

And, as for Brizard, I wish him well in Chicago, which is regarded as one of the most corrupt large cities in the United States. Hopefully, Brizard won’t let Rochester’s door hit him on the asterpadistra when he departs!

My crab spread is chilling in the fridge, along with my shrimp mold. I like cooking, having people over to dinner or going to friends’ homes for a party. We can eat, drink and make merry, and feel comfortable enough to crash if we’ve had too much “merriment.” For me, this is not an unusual evening in that respect.

Some people might celebrate this evening by going out to a restaurant that includes a show and/or dancing, which is also a pleasant way to spend the evening. Others might go to one of the local hotels for similar entertainment, and book rooms after their revelry. That shows a lot of common sense.

For many others, New Year’s Eve is “amateur night” for drinkers, as people make the rounds of the bars, buying drinks at regular prices, awaiting the free plastic cup of champagne at midnight. That’s rather sad for a couple of reasons. One, there will be way too many drunks on the road tonight and early tomorrow morning. Two, these are the people desperately pretending to have fun while they weren’t invited to anyone’s party. All in all, a rather sad situation.

There will also be fireworks in downtown Rochester to ring in the New Year and the new decade; fortunately, it won’t be freezing cold outside tonight.

But I am rather looking forward to dinner with my friends tonight, since I am not particularly nostalgic about the old year, not really hopeful for the new one.

The world remains in a dangerous mess. So does our nation. So does our state and city.

Rochester, in particular, continues its downhill trend towards oblivion. True, our fair city is subject to numerous outside influences that are not its leaders’ fault. But our problem has been our leaders’ real lack of concern about Rochester’s problems, more than their uncompromising ineptitude in dealing with them. In just one year, we have seen the Democratic monopoly twice attempt to limit the voters’ rights to choose. We have seen our elected officials grudgingly allow us to voice our opinions on the subject of mayoral control, of the “special election,” of the downtown bus terminal, and then promptly disregard us. We have seen our elected officials tell us boldfaced lies unashamedly and almost absent mindedly, knowing that there is really nothing we can do about it.

The last part is certainly not unusual in politics everywhere, but previously politicians might have attempted to look a bit ashamed when caught in a lie. Not anymore, certainly not here.

That is because the current administration is more of a racket than a regime; our elected officials and their hangers-on control Rochester completely, and have no need of popular participation in government except for the usual toadies seeking to enter the political arena by making nice to the higher-ups. “Popular participation,” in their eyes, consists of electing candidates put forth by the one-party machine that controls Rochester. In their eyes, THAT is the limit of permissible popular participation. What else are we supposed to want?

True, most Rochesterians and New Yorkers complain a great deal, and claim they are “fed up” with the way things are here in our city and the state. But they aren’t, not really. Otherwise, they would have sent that band of criminals that run the show here packing a long time ago. Which is why things stay the same here, no matter what people say.

Rochester’s population continues to decline, no matter how frequently the administration says people are moving back into the city. The latest census figures proves that to be a lie. Whether or night crime is increasing or waning depends on which set of figures the reader cares to read; for most people, Rochester is viewed as being “unsafe,” the “murder capital” of New York State. And can the police actually STOP crime among people who want to commit illegal acts, especially when a malfunctioning court system seems unable to punish criminals?

The school system is the worst in New York State, with politicians, teachers, unions, parents and politicians each blaming the other. Yet, at the same time, some students ARE actually being educated under the current system ( Malik Evans is an excellent example ).

The economy is a number one issue, yet jobs are being lost here daily and the city government’s need to procure funds through taxation and fees drives small local businessmen out of the city. When various politicians, after having nickel and dimed those same businesses into despair, bring one or two hundred jobs back into Rochester after tens of thousands of jobs have left, this is viewed as some sort of “victory.” Pyrrhic, at best.

Downtown Rochester has been dead for a very long time, yet city government insists on breathing life into a rotting corpse by heavy infusions of public monies and guaranteed loans where the private sector chooses NOT to invest on its own. This comes at the expense of the neighborhoods, which have long gotten used to the fact that there isn’t a Downtown Rochester anymore, and seek to develop their own assets with considerably less aid and support from city government that has been given to tap dancing with Paetec.

One might easily say that this is the result of one-party Democratic rule that governs by fiat more than anything else. Yet when people ask “where are the Republicans?” do they really mean it, or is it just another case of grumbling?

The case is simply that Republicans haven’t run any candidates for city offices only for the last two years, not for decades. And one might make a plausible argument that the Republicans shouldn’t waste their energies on promoting candidates when the majority of Rochesterians are Democrats, and would vote for a rock if it had a “D” placed before its name ( which they do with frightening regularity ).

So much for nostalgia!

Yet there are a few glimmerings that Rochester is not completely peopled with sheep.

The fact that so many people were opposed to the concept of mayoral control of the schools is one such occurence. That a small mob of people opposed to that and the cuts in the fire department ( especially in Charlotte ) caused a lockdown at city hall a year ago is another. That enough people spoke up against a “special election” at city council’s public forum on the matter ( which they hoped to pack in favor of it ) is still another. And finally, the City Committee of the Republican Party, filled with vigorous young people, seeks to take on the county Republicans and demand that the party run candidates for the city is another.

The question is simply whether “the people” can keep up their levels of dissatisfaction with the status quo in Rochester to fight against it and change it, or leave for the greener pastures of the suburbs, or even out of New York State entirely.

The sad optimist in me hopes for the former, while the smiling pessimist that I am believes the latter will most likely occur. Human nature in Rochester, being what it is, the latter will win out.

School Board member Van White, a vocal opponent of mayoral control of Rochester’s schools, claims that he is living legally at three separate residences in two different state assembly districts. He has gone to court to affirm this odd belief. The reasons, of course, are purely political: White wishes to challenge David Gantt for his seat in the state assembly, and claims he maintains two homes in Mr. Gantt’s district. White also maintains what has been assumed to be his primary address in the 131st state assembly district, which is being vacated by long time Democratic professional politician Susan John.

So why doesn’t White run for that seat instead?

The answer is very simple: two other school board members ( School Board President Malik Evans and Willa Powell ) are running for that seat, both of whom are also opposed to mayoral control. They are joined in the running by yet a third Democrat, County Legislature Minority Leader good ol’ Harry Bronson, who is seeking higher office when his hopes of becoming Majority Leader were thwarted by the election in November.

Apparently, Van White doesn’t want to run in that crowded race. Too many Democratic crooks spoil the broth. Consider THAT to be a Freudian slip, if you like!

That crew is being opposed by bright young, energetic Republican Ken Kraus, a newcomer in politics with fresh ideas that are not bogged down by worn out practices that have been the mainstay of Susan John’s tenure in office.

So Van White now claims that he also lives in David Gantt’s district, twiceover, to run against him. Mr. Gantt, of course, is a proponent of mayoral control. It’s White’s way of sticking it to Mr. Gantt!

White claims that he receives mail at those two addresses, keeps clothes there, sleeps there on occasion and also entertains there.

You need three homes in one small city to do that? Of course, he hasn’t said that he has voted simultaneously for all three addresses, which might be the logical outcome if the courts uphold his argument, that you can live in three places at once. Which means that landlords with properties strewn throughout the city could also make the same claim.

Silly me! I thought that a person could only vote from their primary residence, and could only run for office if their residency requirements had been met! And that there was a “one person, one vote rule.”

I have known and heard of many people who maintained separate residences when they worked far away from their primary homes, or were undergoing divorces and the property settlements hadn’t been finalized, or were simply setting up little love nests away from their wives and children. This is NOT the case here.

The legislation to give the mayor who now is control over the Rochester City School District is in the hands of the New York State Senate. They will probably pass it, almost absent mindedly. What the fifty-two pages of legislation lacks in depth, it makes up for in breadth. It takes a lot to say very little. Apart from the creation of various groups to foster “community involvement” in the schools ( nobody is preventing the community from getting involved NOW, if they had a mind to do, which makes it the first fatal flaw in this “plan” ), it still does not say HOW this will increase graduation rates or raise math and verbal scores.

That, we have been repeatedly told, will come when the legislation enacting mayoral control has been passed. But, then, what will we mere mortals have to say about it.

So we had better talk now before it becomes treason to do so in Rochester. Recently, media reports have given high national “performance” scores to some of Rochester’s suburban school districts. Have the opponents or proponents of mayoral control bothered to look at the reasons why Rochester’s schools fare so poorly?

One might remember that the teachers in both the urban and suburban school districts were trained at the same universities and colleges. It becomes clear that blaming the teachers for Rochester’s pee-poor school system while they are succeeding in the suburbs is both too easy and a mistake.

On the other hand, there are some very obvious differences that, for fear of being politically incorrect, nobody dares mention. And these go right to the heart of the problem with any sort of educational reform for Rochester’s schools. The big difference between the city and the suburbs is the tremendous concentration of poverty in Rochester. This does not preclude education per se, but it ties into the real problem: the welfare system. There are a lot of people in Rochester on public assistance, with several generations of families on the dole living under one roof! Couple that with the fact that many are single parent households, usually headed by young women who themselves dropped out of school when they became pregnant, and we can see why “the community” has largely been unconcerned with what goes on in the schools. Outside of a place to send children during the day to get them out of the house, schools serve no other purpose to some families.

Nor are some dysfunctional familes overly concerned if their kids even get to school at all, and let them run around the city playing truant.

And can non-supportive, unwed baby fathers ( themselves drop outs ), either totally absent from the families they have sired by choice or by incarceration be expected to provide examples of support and encouragement to their children? Will they tell their children to stay in school, graduate, find jobs and break the vicious cycle? Nah. Brought up for several generations on a diet of public assistance, ghettos and slums, can those bad habits truly be broken without being offered anything in return?

Which is the terrible truth and fatal flaw of mayoral control. It has to change the mindsets, perceptions and habits of several generations of Rochesterians. It can’t, because there are no teeth in the legislation to attempt this. The legislation, all fifty-two pages of it, looks like it was drafted for Brighton or Pittsford ( which doesn’t need it ), wealthy suburbs with nurturing, caring familes, not Rochester, with the highest amount of child poverty in the state ( and the 11th highest in the nation! ).

The only way mayoral control would have any positive effect at all on Rochester’s schools might be to link it to welfare reform. Give children a real reason to stay in school…or else!

The “or else” would consist of depriving people of their support payments for each day that their children are truant from school. Or for poor performance ( both social and academic ) when there are no physical or medical reasons for bad behavior. Or telling drop outs that they will not be elligible for public assistance, so they had better show up for school and make the best of it and get a diploma.

Hell, even ditch-diggers have to know how long, wide and deep they have to dig them!

It might even convince a few teenaged girls NOT to get pregnant, since their benefits would be slashed by their absence from school!

But, too many people would say this is too harsh, too inhumane. Which is why our schools have been failing. And without any real teeth, why mayoral control will fail, too.

April 30 is Walpurgisnacht, the night of the “Witches’ Sabbath.” It was also the first time a public forum on Mayoral Control that featured Mayor Bob Duffy occurred. What one has to do with the other is a matter for conjecture, though it might have had something to do with the low turnout for this much anticipated event. Only about 100 people showed up, despite the intensity of emotion that the subject has produced in Rochester the last six or seven months.

D&C editor James Lawrence moderated the event, sponsored by the Sigma Pi Phi Fraternity. The panelists were city council president Lovely Warren, Sandy Parker from the Rochester Business Alliance, Mayor Duffy himself, Rochester Teachers’ Association leader Adam Urbanski and school board president Malik Evans.

The rules for the discussion were simple: each panelist had seven minutes to make opening statements. There would be a follow up of two minutes to answer questions by Mr. Lawrence, followed by one minute to conclude. If the audience had any questions, they were to fill out a card addressed to a particular panelist, and then Mr. Lawrence would put the question to that panelist.

Unfortunately, none of the panelists were in their best form Friday night. In particularly, neither Bob nor Lovely looked well. Perhaps it was the warm weather. But none of the panel gave any real answers to the current crisis facing the Rochester schools.

Perhaps it was because the questions submitted by the audience seemed “cherry picked” by Mr. Lawrence. The three submitted by myself and two of my friends were never used. Perhaps it was because of time constraints. Perhaps some people had questions that were controversial. Perhaps some questions required replies that Mr. Lawrence felt that the panelists had no answers to offer.

Who knows?

All I know is that people left no wiser than before they came to this discussion, and that neither side were able to bring over their opponents to their way of thinking.

However, it was noticeable that the term “mayoral control” was hardly used. The term “educational reform” was frequently substituted for it by Lovely, Sandy and Bob, supporters of it. Adam and Malik, opponents of “mayoral control,” kept on speaking against it as such.

There were some interesting statements made during the course of the discussion, none of which had to do with improving anything, which allowed the panelists to tap dance around the issue.

Lovely Warren: “The city council can vote the school budget up or vote it down. But if we vote it down, it will still happen.” So why do we have city council vote for it at all?

Sandy Parker: “There are lots of high paying jobs in Rochester available to people with only high school diplomas. In the medical field, for instance.” What, emptying bedpans provides lucrative incomes? Come on now, Sandy!

Sandy: “In February, the RBA conducted a poll of 500 people, the results of which matched the poll conducted by the CGR the following month.” That’s the first anyone heard of that, and the CGR’s poll didn’t satisfy opponents of “mayoral control.”

Adam Urbanski: “I want change, just not this change.” “Assault on civil rights.” “Collaborative change, not concessions.” All of this sounds good. It would sound even better if Adam weren’t the head of a union whose membership would come under closer scrutiny and many downsized in the course of tightening up the school budget under “mayoral control.”

Malik Evans: “Non-binding public referendums.” “Non-partisan school board elections.” Sounds good, but it has been done before. And why waste the time and effort to vote on something that will not force anybody to do anything? But, at least Malik went through the city school system and did well there. And he is also the best example that a good family environment, despite poverty, can produce some shining examples. Perhaps Malik’s own experience is the greatest refutation of the need for mayoral control.

Bob Duffy: the usual glittering generalities, especially since everyone knows the problem. But he did wisely say that “there are no easy answers.” The problem, quite simply, is that he’s not providing ANY answers. If Bob simply produced a plan of some kind, it might go a long to way to gain support or at least silence debate. Bob also wisely chose not to mention his “79% approval rating” or the poll conducted by the CGR, since those have been done to death.

And so the debate goes on. “Mayoral Control” or “Educational Reform.” “A rose by any other name, the perfume, and the pricks, the same.”

Oh, well. At least the festivals are coming up. At least those are non-partisan.

Does anyone still admit to remembering those wild and woolly days of the ’60s and ’70s when everyone was accused of protesting anything just to be contrary? It seems that everything old is new again! Picketing has become all the rage. Only it seems to make a lot less sense than in the good old days.

Months ago, the SDS ( Students For A Democratic Society ) had altercations with the local police over protesting against the war in Afghanistan. In January, City Hall was surrounded by hundreds of people representing various unions, parents, students and neighborhood groups opposed to ( among other things ) mayoral control of the schools. This was repeated in March when “The Mayor’s Ball” was picketed. ( The previously planned awards dinner was cancelled over fear of such a demonstration taking place, as were the mayor’s scheduled “informational meetings” on the subject of mayoral control of the schools. ) Tea Parties have been assembling in protest over the “far left” swing of government and society. Not that most people really care or are particularly concerned anyway. A good many tea partiers have begun to resemble the hippies of yesteryear: clownish “Uncle Sam” and “patriot” costumes, noisy rhetoric and badly mimeographed handouts. Only their balding pates, spreading paunches, crows’ feet and grey hair belie their age. But they all talk a good deal about “Freedom,” hoping to impose their version of it upon others who disagree with it.

Most of “middle America,” whatever the Hell that means anymore, tends to regard protest as something radicals or unsatisfied unions or crackpots engage in. Of course, those same people grumble about the way things are going, but choose to do nothing about it, lamenting the good old days.

Some merely have the good sense to laugh at it all.

Like the protest outside of the School Board last night.

Under the impending “plan” ( non-existent as yet ) for mayoral control of the schools, the School Board is to be eliminated. This has been one of the problems with the mayor’s “plan,” since the continued existence of the School Board seems supported by many parents, students and unions for whatever reasons of political expedience they choose to muster. Since this year will probably be the School Board’s “last hurrah,” they have busily been preparing the budget for next school year. It features heavy cuts in the area of non-teaching staff, and will ultimately cut teachers as well.

Teachers of the arts in the public schools are the most worried. They feel that their jobs are far more necessary to a child’s education, even if the kid can’t add or spell. Go figure!

However, the unions of the non-teaching staff, some parents and at least one student ( as reported by the D&C ) picketed outside the School Board last night, opposing such cuts. It happened last year, too, before mayoral control became City Hall’s latest hot potato, before it spilled over into the City Council, where parents were demanding that it restore the cuts. This was beyond the competence of the City Council to do under the current system, which is what those protesting against mayoral control of the schools wish to preserve!

In short, the same people who wish to preserve the current system and retain an elected School Board were protesting against it last night.

Go figure!

It seems that while the various unions, parents and their brainwashed children don’t want mayoral control, they don’t want the School Board to make cuts in their fiefdoms, either. Never mind the fact that the student population in Rochester’s public schools is declining, and might not need as much staff. Never mind the fact that Rochester’s tax base is shrinking with every major business that pulls out and tears down their buildings. Never mind the fact that Rochester has one of the worst, if not the worst, school systems in the state.

Frankly, the next time people might claim that they are going to stage a protest somewhere in the city, the street meat vendors ought to come out in full force. They might at least make some money out of this. It might even draw a few spectators out, like multiple car crashes do!

The results of the latest poll on mayoral control of the Rochester City Schools, prompted by the Center for Governmental Research, are in. Two thirds of those people who returned their survey were in favor of mayoral control. That was no surprise, since the CGR is not an impartial body in this matter. Deputy mayor Patti Malgieri was formerly associated with that group. City employee Thomas S. Richards sits on the board of the CGR. Members of the Board of Trustees of the CGR wrote letters in support of mayoral control before this “survey” was conducted. ( Remember all those college presidents who came out supporting Mayor Duffy some weeks ago? )

Everyone knows that whoever pays for a survey to be conducted gets the results they desired. It is no different here.

According to Editorial Blogger Jane Sutter, Mayor Duffy was “thrilled to death” at the news.

Maybe it was the full moon.

Mayor Duffy also stated that other people will “come round” once the legislation to enable mayoral control is enacted. Of course, at that point, there won’t be a choice, except to pursue the matter in the courts. Otherwise, it will be a done deal, for better or worse.

But let’s take a closer look at what the mayor is “thrilled to death” about. It really isn’t that exciting.

The CGR claims that they sent out a survey to 2,000 Rochesterians. Rochester has a population hovering around 200,000, so we’re talking 1% of the population. Nobody I know received a survey, and for hoots and giggles, I intend to ask everyone attending the Maplewood Neighborhood Association’s monthly “town meeting” if they didn’t receive one as well.

435 people responded, which is 21.5% of the supposedly 2,000 surveys sent out, NOT the 26% posted by the D&C ( they didn’t do the math ), less than a quarter of 1% of Rochester’s population.

Two-thirds of 435 people supported mayoral control; the number is 290.

So Bob Duffy is “thrilled to death” that, out of a population of 200,000, 290 people support mayoral control!

That’s “Rochester By The Numbers!”

Don’t get me wrong. After the repeated abject failures of the Rochester School Board, I couldn’t care less if that body were blown off the face of the earth, whether they were elected or not. As for Adam Urbanski, his whining about mayoral control with no constructive alternative suggestions should be seen for what it is: he doesn’t want his applecart upset. The policemen and firemen’s unions have their own bones to pick with Bob Duffy, and are joining the protest merely to embarrass him, which has been largely successful. Parents and students oppose the mayor for various reasons, whether they be about popular input, which nobody ever denied them before, or retaining an elected school board, no matter how badly they have muddled the Rochester schools.

Pretty stupid reasons, given the situation.

But Bob hasn’t offered anything, either. And his secrecy is maddening, which has led to so much opposition to mayoral control.

Except, of course, for the 290 people who support it.

Bob could permit a popular vote to be taken on the subject: Yes or No to mayoral control, and winner take all. Now, THAT might be an accurate reflection of Rochester’s opinion, but Bob doesn’t seem to be “thrilled to death” to apply that solution. It won’t be able to be so easily manipulated as this poll was. The results might not thrill Bob.

As for the “Mandate of the 290,” I’m laughing so hard I might burst a blood vessel!

This year’s “Mayor’s Ball,” the annual gala Democratic fundraiser, featured an added attraction: hundreds of people picketing it, protesting the impending mayoral control of Rochester’s schools. What was unique about the protest is that it consisted of the teachers’, policemen’s and firemen’s unions ( usually big financial contributors to the Democrats ) and parents ( usually supportive of Democratic policies that have led to Rochester becoming a one-party town ). Last night, they were out in force, an embarrassment to the Democratic politicians dolled up like Astor’s Plush Horse who have so heavily depended upon their previous support.

To be sure, this was no revolution, just an expression of popular disappointment with the current regime.

The focus of the protest was against Bob Duffy’s plan for mayoral control of the schools. Interviewed by TV 10 News at the Ball, Bob seemed embarrassed and testy about the protesters: they are selfish, they aren’t concerned about the kids, his opponents are losing momentum.

He did not bother to tell that to the crowd of protesters, who could have elsewhere on a Saturday night in Rochester.

Bob was correct on one subject: a less than fifty percent graduation rate is unacceptable. But the ineptitude has been going on for decades, and where has he been the last four years?

Bob’s embarrassment on the interview was understandable: for this protest to occur at the Mayor’s Ball was an insult to his leadership. Bob IS tall, handsome and charming; he has counted on that for the last four years as the main pillar of his regime. This time, it has failed big time. His smile is not enough to put through an unpopular program and silence dissent by his will alone.

The reasons people picketed the Ball were varied. Some argued that abolishing the elected school board, no matter how incompetent, was interfering with “democracy,” our right to choose.

Others claimed that the mayor, usually so mindful of his popularity and bragging about it, should have asked “the people.”

Others correctly stated that the mayor has no plan, which is probably the biggest factor in opposition to mayoral control. It’s sheer lunacy that Bob hasn’t seen that, that some sort of plan would have done much to silence some debate and perhaps even gain some support from people who are dissatisfied with the school board.

But, “ainsi sera, groigne que groigne:” that is the way it’s going to be, grumble though they may.

And “the smile” is looking more forced these days.

One might wonder if the mayor still has his “79% approval rating.”

To be sure, Grand High Poobah of the County Democrats, Joe Morelle, and Duffy Palmer, an old friend of the mayor’s, are drafting the legislation to effect mayoral control of the schools. IF it is passed in Albany, mayoral control, for better or worse, will be a done deal. Which is why people are protesting it now, much to this “popular” regime’s embarrassment. They probably feel it is better to be shot for sheep as for lambs.

And people are looking more closely at the antics of our city government.

Well, the state just released the figures for the graduation rate in Rochester for this year; we’re down to 46%. Not a good thing for those who see the need to keep supporting our inept school board, which claims that things are moving along nicely in Rochester’s schools. That would include board member Van White and Rochester Teachers’ Association president Adam Urbanski.

Of course, they now claim that they expected a drop in the graduation rate here this year, owing to the state tightening up standards. Funny that they never mentioned it before, while their opposition to mayoral control of the schools was heating up. From unacceptable graduation rates before the debate began, to a worse rate now, all they can do is blame the state.

Why not? Everyone else does for everything else.

Which makes one wonder if the standards set by the state were low to begin with, not that most of the kids attending the city schools could meet them even then.

At any rate, all this does is play into the mayor’s hands. Not that he has a plan yet, but it does make the elected school board and our trained and unionized educational professionals and their supporters look incredibly stupid. Which might make people think that any change would be an improvement on the current situation, which is no longer tenable or justifiable.

Contributors

Click on a blogger to see just their posts.

Rich Gardner has been writing about the history, culture and waterways of Upstate New York for years. His articles have appeared in U.S. and Canadian publications, and one book, Learning to Walk. He is an alumnus of Brighton High School and SUNY Geneseo. He operates Upstate Resume & Writing Service in Brighton and recently moved to Corn Hill, where he is already involved in community projects. "I enjoy the 'Aha!' moments of learning new things, conceptual and literal. City living is a great teacher."

Ken Warner grew up in Brockport and first experienced Rochester as a messenger boy for a law firm in Midtown Tower. He recently moved downtown into a loft on the 13th floor of the Temple Building with a view of the Liberty Poll and works in the Powers Building overlooking Rochester’s four corners as Executive Director for UNICON, an organization devoted to bringing economic development to the community. He hopes to use his Rochester Blog to share his observations from these unique views of downtown.